104Feeder
Phoenix Feeder
True Colors
- Thread starter Non sequitur
- Start date
104Feeder
Phoenix Feeder
You do know that in the West we have Post-65 coverage. But hey, the few who voted wanted people who wouldn't stand with Local 177 and the Western Region......
Non sequitur
Well-Known Member
Mandates are not laws. Only Congress can enact laws.Supremacy Clause
www.law.cornell.edu
104Feeder
Phoenix Feeder
:sigh: You know you can go to college for free thanks to the Teamsters.
administrative law
Non sequitur
Well-Known Member
What's the point of your comment I read the supremacy clause that you posted. Talks about how federal laws supersede state laws. How is a mandate a law? Or maybe you're giving your speculation on how the supreme Court will rule?:sigh: You know you can go to college for free thanks to the Teamsters.
administrative law
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
In fact, mandates and laws are effectively the same thing. The only difference is how they are initiated: Mandates are created and enacted by an executive branch, such as a state governor, rather than through a lengthier legislative process that ends with the governor's signature and new, durable law.
Is a mask mandate in the US the same as a law?
A legal expert explains why mandates are enforceable.
qz.com
Non sequitur
Well-Known Member
Thank you for a respectful response.In fact, mandates and laws are effectively the same thing. The only difference is how they are initiated: Mandates are created and enacted by an executive branch, such as a state governor, rather than through a lengthier legislative process that ends with the governor's signature and new, durable law.
Is a mask mandate in the US the same as a law?
A legal expert explains why mandates are enforceable.
Non sequitur
Well-Known Member
So outside of Congress the executive branch in Acts laws through mandates. It is only the courts that can overrule such laws. So if the courts are a check on the presidential powers in this case, we can conclude that Congress doesn't want to go on record as far as the mandates are concerned. One term Biden is their Fall Guy.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Mandates are put in place in the public interest most often when the situation does not afford the time to enact legislation.
Non sequitur
Well-Known Member
You would agree that there needs to be a check on this type of law creation? If left unchecked we have essentially opened up the proverbial "can".
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
I can tell you firsthand as a resident of New York how unchecked authority-----"power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"----in the form of the emergency powers Gov. Cuomo conferred upon himself at the start of the pandemic.
104Feeder
Phoenix Feeder
OSHA, like all federal agencies, was created and given power by Congress and signed by Nixon.
The Job Safety Law of 1970: Its Passage Was Perilous
Three decades ago Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to help protect the Nation's workers on the job, following a 3-year struggle. By Judson MacLaury
Under certain circumstances, an agency may issue an Emergency Temporary Standard which is what OSHA did in regards to the vaccine or test+mask mandate. The question before the Supreme Court now is whether OSHA exceeded its authority and scope under the 1970 law in issuing the ETS and whether it should have gone the more cumbersome rulemaking route (Note the issue is not the constitutionality or any conspiracy theory 'Nuremberg code" being floated by more Questionable characters.). If the Court says it did, OSHA could go that route, or OSHA could issue a new ETS requiring more stringent PPE use and testing, OSHA or other agencies could use a patchwork of rules and authority to require most American workers to be vaccinated in a more targeted fashion (such as the USDA could require meatpackers to be vaccinated), Congress could also widen the scope and more specifically and clearly authorize such powers in the 1970 law.. Even if it fails there, Cal-OSHA could still enforce their own mandate as they have a carve-out in the 1970 law, The SCOTUS could just take their sweet time issuing a ruling, allowing the mandate to have its effect while restricting Executive power later. I'm leaning towards that route given that they declined to issue a stay and have refused to block other mask and vaccine mandates. Court watchers feel the comments made by the Justices signal they may strike it down. A decision could come any day, in a week or two, or they could wait until May/June when they issue most decisions from a term.
Court seems poised to block vaccine-or-test policy for workplaces but may allow vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Friday in two sets of challenges to the Biden administration’s authority to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. For over two hours of debate, the justices were skeptical of the administration’s attempt to impose a vaccine-or-test mandate for workers at large employ
Breaking down the vaccine arguments - SCOTUSblog
Sean Marotta, a partner at Hogan Lovells and an expert on the legal challenges to Biden vaccine policies, joins us to dissect Friday’s remarkable oral arguments. If you have questions about the court, the justices, or an upcoming case, please email us at [email protected]. We may answer y
Non sequitur
Well-Known Member
And you agree with the authority president Nixon created during his term? When the phase 3 trials are finished in 2024 maybe then the government will have a legal and moral leg to stand on.
Cowboy Mac
Well-Known Member
Oh, like an emergency.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
…or a pandemic…
Cowboy Mac
Well-Known Member
Nobody ELECTED OSHA. They are out of the control of the people right now. And guess what? When they force you to get vaccinated you’re vaccinated all day long. Not just at work. They’re out of their jurisdiction here.OSHA, like all federal agencies, was created and given power by Congress and signed by Nixon.
Federal agencies create administrative law by a process called rulemaking, This a a longer process requiring studies, proposed rulemaking, a public comment period, etc. Once published in the Federal Register the rule has the force of law. The entire green book of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations is an example of this rulemaking process into law.The Job Safety Law of 1970: Its Passage Was Perilous
Three decades ago Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to help protect the Nation's workers on the job, following a 3-year struggle. By Judson MacLaurywww.dol.gov
Under certain circumstances, an agency may issue an Emergency Temporary Standard which is what OSHA did in regards to the vaccine or test+mask mandate. The question before the Supreme Court now is whether OSHA exceeded its authority and scope under the 1970 law in issuing the ETS and whether it should have gone the more cumbersome rulemaking route (Note the issue is not the constitutionality or any conspiracy theory 'Nuremberg code" being floated by more Questionable characters.). If the Court says it did, OSHA could go that route, or OSHA could issue a new ETS requiring more stringent PPE use and testing, OSHA or other agencies could use a patchwork of rules and authority to require most American workers to be vaccinated in a more targeted fashion (such as the USDA could require meatpackers to be vaccinated), Congress could also widen the scope and more specifically and clearly authorize such powers in the 1970 law.. Even if it fails there, Cal-OSHA could still enforce their own mandate as they have a carve-out in the 1970 law, The SCOTUS could just take their sweet time issuing a ruling, allowing the mandate to have its effect while restricting Executive power later. I'm leaning towards that route given that they declined to issue a stay and have refused to block other mask and vaccine mandates. Court watchers feel the comments made by the Justices signal they may strike it down. A decision could come any day, in a week or two, or they could wait until May/June when they issue most decisions from a term.
Court seems poised to block vaccine-or-test policy for workplaces but may allow vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Friday in two sets of challenges to the Biden administration’s authority to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. For over two hours of debate, the justices were skeptical of the administration’s attempt to impose a vaccine-or-test mandate for workers at large employwww.scotusblog.com
Breaking down the vaccine arguments - SCOTUSblog
Sean Marotta, a partner at Hogan Lovells and an expert on the legal challenges to Biden vaccine policies, joins us to dissect Friday’s remarkable oral arguments. If you have questions about the court, the justices, or an upcoming case, please email us at [email protected]. We may answer ywww.scotusblog.com
Cowboy Mac
Well-Known Member
So it’s been 2 years, you can’t really argue at this point that they didn’t have time to legislate through congress. Not an emergency anymore.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Would they then have to rescind the law once (if) the pandemic finally ends or would they include sunset language that would basically do the same thing?
Non sequitur
Well-Known Member
Jacobson vs the state of Massachusetts. State successfully argued for state vaccine mandate.OSHA, like all federal agencies, was created and given power by Congress and signed by Nixon.
Federal agencies create administrative law by a process called rulemaking, This a a longer process requiring studies, proposed rulemaking, a public comment period, etc. Once published in the Federal Register the rule has the force of law. The entire green book of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations is an example of this rulemaking process into law.The Job Safety Law of 1970: Its Passage Was Perilous
Three decades ago Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to help protect the Nation's workers on the job, following a 3-year struggle. By Judson MacLaury
Under certain circumstances, an agency may issue an Emergency Temporary Standard which is what OSHA did in regards to the vaccine or test+mask mandate. The question before the Supreme Court now is whether OSHA exceeded its authority and scope under the 1970 law in issuing the ETS and whether it should have gone the more cumbersome rulemaking route (Note the issue is not the constitutionality or any conspiracy theory 'Nuremberg code" being floated by more Questionable characters.). If the Court says it did, OSHA could go that route, or OSHA could issue a new ETS requiring more stringent PPE use and testing, OSHA or other agencies could use a patchwork of rules and authority to require most American workers to be vaccinated in a more targeted fashion (such as the USDA could require meatpackers to be vaccinated), Congress could also widen the scope and more specifically and clearly authorize such powers in the 1970 law.. Even if it fails there, Cal-OSHA could still enforce their own mandate as they have a carve-out in the 1970 law, The SCOTUS could just take their sweet time issuing a ruling, allowing the mandate to have its effect while restricting Executive power later. I'm leaning towards that route given that they declined to issue a stay and have refused to block other mask and vaccine mandates. Court watchers feel the comments made by the Justices signal they may strike it down. A decision could come any day, in a week or two, or they could wait until May/June when they issue most decisions from a term.
Court seems poised to block vaccine-or-test policy for workplaces but may allow vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Friday in two sets of challenges to the Biden administration’s authority to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. For over two hours of debate, the justices were skeptical of the administration’s attempt to impose a vaccine-or-test mandate for workers at large employ
Breaking down the vaccine arguments - SCOTUSblog
Sean Marotta, a partner at Hogan Lovells and an expert on the legal challenges to Biden vaccine policies, joins us to dissect Friday’s remarkable oral arguments. If you have questions about the court, the justices, or an upcoming case, please email us at [email protected]. We may answer y
104Feeder
Phoenix Feeder
Even there you had a choice, to pay the fine ($157.92 in today's dollars.)
Similar threads
